|
Tequila Ranger posted:So the entry at the bottom... What's a "Starweaver"? I'm betting it's a Venom with jester bits, like how we all know the Jetbike is going to be a Reaver with jester bits
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
I'm betting that Harlequin jetbikes won't make an appearance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
For the new C'Tan powers, it'd be nice to see clarification on whether they can be used twice or not per shooting phase (since they count as ranged weapons). That might mitigate some of the ~wacky randomness~
panascope fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
I can't see any reason why they'd be able to fire twice. It is a single weapon. It'd be like saying a Bloodthirster can use his whip twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
I just learned that the Fire Raptor is in IA Volume 2 Second Edition. When I play it in my Codex Space Marine army, should I be using those rules or the "experimental" ones from the Forge World website? And how up-to-date is IA2v2 on other stuff like the Caestus, Mortis, and Contemptor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
So would 1-2 Tomb Awakened and 1-2 Battleforce boxes be a good buy for a Necron army?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I just learned that the Fire Raptor is in IA Volume 2 Second Edition. When I play it in my Codex Space Marine army, should I be using those rules or the "experimental" ones from the Forge World website? And how up-to-date is IA2v2 on other stuff like the Caestus, Mortis, and Contemptor? IA2 is the most up-to-date rules for all of those units, but I don't think there's a major difference between that and the experimental rules on their website. I'd double-check if I were you though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
I have no clue why that schmuck took the photos in black and white since it's the 21st century and all, but here's some color photos:       BULBASAUR posted:Need some help: I'm wrapping up my dark admech detachment, and I want some cool looking cyber famliars/servo skulls. Anybody here have any interesting ideas on how to pull that off? I've been trying to find something that works and have been stumped. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Thanks for the color pics SRM.  Lungboy posted:Harlequin Troupe £24 for 6, Solitaire £16. It doesn't look like the Death Jester or Shadow Weaver can be made from the standard Troupe box, so I'd guess there will be a second release the following week, maybe with the new vehicle? Interestingly, they are no longer part of the standard Troupe. There's no option to upgrade troupers into them on the dataslate. I hope that marks a return to 1-3E Harlies where those dudes were ICs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
SRM posted:I have no clue why that schmuck took the photos in black and white since it's the 21st century and all, but here's some color photos: Awww, it's like they are trying to be Infinity models, but way fatter  .
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Awww, it's like they are trying to be Infinity models, but way fatter And easier to put together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Awww, it's like they are trying to be Infinity models, but way fatter Not to nitpick, but the metal harlies these are based on are older than most of infinities entire catalogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Are their pictures in the Blood Angel codex of the new Blood Angel tactical squad painted in successor chapter colors? I get the impression that any other chapter such as their successors (I've always liked Flesh Tearers) just wouldn't "look right". I also get a similar vibe with Dark Angel successor chapters and the DA upgrade sprue (and I don't have that codex either). In addition, are the only heavy weapons allowed in a BA tactical squad the heavy flamer or heavy bolter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
That holofield or whatever effect on the Solitaire's coat is legitimately neat and an awesome touch of character besides the normal jokers in cheqeurs leaping at bizarre angles that harlequins generally get. And I doubt new jetbikes are incoming, but a dual harlequin/craftworld jetbike kit would be amazing. edit: serious gaylord posted:Not to nitpick, but the metal harlies these are based on are older than most of infinities entire catalogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Not to nitpick, but the metal harlies these are based on are older than most of infinities entire catalogue. and there are no tits are arses hanging out wtf gw
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:That holofield or whatever effect on the Solitaire's coat is legitimately neat and an awesome touch of character besides the normal jokers in cheqeurs leaping at bizarre angles that harlequins generally get. I was talking about the current metal range harlies that are leaping all over the place. The plastic ones arent doing anything new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Devlan Mud posted:
He is referring to the harlequins that were released in 2006 which were metal, not the original RT harlequins. A quick google tells me that Infinity was created in 2005 so yeah, GW probably didnt copy them because GW have models made waaaay in advance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Not to nitpick, but the metal harlies these are based on are older than most of infinities entire catalogue. "Not to nitpick" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:"Not to nitpick" Not [blank], but [synonymous with earlier blank]
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
I hardly think "pirouetting off a piece of rubble" is something exclusive to either Warhams or Infinity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:"Not to nitpick" You made a insipid "gently caress GW" comment. It was pointed out that what you said was daft. Don't get butt-hurt about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Harlies at least have a legit reason to look like a Cirque de Soleil act.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I just learned that the Fire Raptor is in IA Volume 2 Second Edition. When I play it in my Codex Space Marine army, should I be using those rules or the "experimental" ones from the Forge World website? And how up-to-date is IA2v2 on other stuff like the Caestus, Mortis, and Contemptor? The "experimental" rules are the rules they put up for a vehicle on the site prior to it being released in a book. They are also open to feedback during that period of time for changes to the rules... Once it is in print (in this example in IA2 2nd Ed) you should use the in print rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
I'm seeing a lot of potential Vivecs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
GW will roll back end times and blame it on CHIM
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:You made a insipid "gently caress GW" comment. It was pointed out that what you said was daft. Don't get butt-hurt about it.  I'll try not to be butt-hurt, but it's so hard to do when talking about Warhams. E: BTW, the original comment was an attempt to express the fact that current "heroic scale minis" can look kind of doofy after you start working with other non-heroic scaled minis like Infinity or many Historical ranges. This doofiness is heightened when the models in question are supposed to be svelte. Even the older edition elves/eldar from GW look more trim that those harlequins. Now, having said all that I still like the harlequin aesthetic (I always have), I just think those ones look a bit too thick. Indolent Bastard fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
double post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:I'll try not to be butt-hurt, but it's so hard to do when talking about Warhams. You guys have a thread for this, please use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
SRM posted:I have no clue why that schmuck took the photos in black and white since it's the 21st century and all, but here's some color photos: I'm just gonna say it: I don't actually like the posing on most of those Harlequins. Some of them do look really cool and dynamic, but a lot of them just look like they're prancing and mincing about and aren't intimidating at all. Big Willy Style posted:and there are no tits are arses hanging out wtf gw Games Workshop literally doesn't know what women are. In the past two editions, they have printed a grand total of three female characters. You can generally count the number of even just pictures with women in them in a given codex on zero hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Well Canoptek Spyders got cheaper Weapon upgrades, I have no idea why people think Scarab farm is dead. Statistically Scarabs are better now has the unit can actually now harm T7+ and Imperial Knights. Don't see how that's a complaint. 3 Tomb Spyders w/ Twin linked Particle Beamers, Gloom Prism 5th edition ( 240) 10 Spyders 5th edition (150) Total : 390 3 Tomb Spyders w/ 3 Twin Linked Particle Beamers, Gloom Prism (190) 10 Spyders (200) Total : 390 Canoptek Formation 3 Tomb Spyders w/ Twin Linked Particle Beamers, Glood Prism (190) 10 Spyders (200) 6 Canoptek Wraiths (220) Everything has a 4+ RP with in 12 of the Spyders. Total : 610 What am I missing here? Some new rule ? Hollismason fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Games Workshop literally doesn't know what women are. In the past two editions, they have printed a grand total of three female characters. You can generally count the number of even just pictures with women in them in a given codex on zero hands. As a (man) player of both games, I am not really sure Infinity's attitude towards women is any better, at least as presented in their models. The background of infinity does make plenty of reference to female characters, but quite a few descriptions centre on how gorgeous they are. A very high proportion of Infinity models depicting women are blatantly stripper-posed sex objects, and almost all of them have some key differences to the male models - high heels, cocked hips, passive poses etc are all very much in evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Yeah, pretty much 99% of Scifi female models can be described as Part time Warrior, Full Time Whore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
When I think of women in Infinity I always remember the highlander in a see-through wet t-shirt and micro-mini skirt, while the male companion model is wearing a kilt below the knees and a heavy winter jacket. And they are both on snow bases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:As a (man) player of both games, I am not really sure Infinity's attitude towards women is any better, at least as presented in their models. The background of infinity does make plenty of reference to female characters, but quite a few descriptions centre on how gorgeous they are. A very high proportion of Infinity models depicting women are blatantly stripper-posed sex objects, and almost all of them have some key differences to the male models - high heels, cocked hips, passive poses etc are all very much in evidence. This is basically the reason the game's gained zero ground at my minis meta and why the local big gaming store won't stock it. GW has been able to do gender before. About a quarter to a third of the basic wood elf Archer infantry for Fantasy are women, as well as most of their new line infantry kits, and they've done it in a way that is very much explicitly not sexual. So the way they consistently fail to anything even remotely like that for other armies that could justify it easily comes across as deliberate, which is somehow worse. The Harlequins are a gateway to this, though, and I love that they're becoming a thing again! Can't help but wonder why I'd ever take an Eversor when the Solitaire exists, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:When I think of women in Infinity I always remember the highlander in a see-through wet t-shirt and micro-mini skirt, while the male companion model is wearing a kilt below the knees and a heavy winter jacket. And they are both on snow bases. They aren't all that bad, but yeah... (slightly  because pokies)
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
 Oh my god I'm finished with paintingPowered through my last Harpy to have a completely finished army:  My full 1850pt army plus a sideboard of a Toxicrene and Tyrannocyst for a 1000pt ally army on one convenient carry tray. I can hold the thing sideways and be secure nothing is going anywhere. It took forever but man it's satisfying to have it finished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Sensational Pierre. It's been fun watching you put it all together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:When I think of women in 40K I always remember Lelith Hesperax in a bra top and battle thong, while Drazhar is wearing a full body suit where you can't see any skin. Also:  I'm off to the good GW thread, later 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Rulebook Heavily posted:This is basically the reason the game's gained zero ground at my minis meta and why the local big gaming store won't stock it. Yeah. It's a real shame tbh because I like everything about Infinity a lot, except that. Far better 40k's women-are-invisible sausagefest (which as a guy I have to admit I barely notice) than the nagging embarrassment of playing Infinity against a guy with a shitload of models with carefully painted tit-windows, suspenders and out-thrust buttocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:I'm just gonna say it: I don't actually like the posing on most of those Harlequins. Some of them do look really cool and dynamic, but a lot of them just look like they're prancing and mincing about and aren't intimidating at all. AbusePuppy posted:Games Workshop literally doesn't know what women are. In the past two editions, they have printed a grand total of three female characters. You can generally count the number of even just pictures with women in them in a given codex on zero hands. Still better than the alternative of titty elves OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 22:52
|
|